What Do We Think About Climate Change

I can't the source that I used. My friend in CMEEC is unavailable so in fairness I withdraw that part of my argument until I do find it.

 

Thank you.

 

Let me repeat the point: where do you get off accusing people of being blind to science and reason, because they believe mainstream scientists might actually know what they're talking about?

If you think the average climatologist (or other scientist) is some sort of cute little hippie growing his own pot, you're the one who's sadly out of touch with reality.

 

No...not cute.

 

Precisely. Alarmists are just choosing and comparing the periods of time that they think support their claims, as simple as that, but refuse to compare with periods from which we can take contrary conclusions. That's pure (and dishonest) cherrypicking.

Let me ask you some questions:

Can you prove the rate of increase of temperatures from 1970-2000 is unprecedented?

Can you prove there is a direct causation between anthropogenic CO2 and such temperature increase?

Please bring here such proves and we'll see.

 

Several works from Essenhigh (20019), Michaels (1988), Freidenreich (1993), Lindzen, Patterson (2005) and others support the 95% figure. The 70% you mention (more precisely 67%) is from the IPCC.

The only way CO2 could create an significant warming is by means of a positive feedback with clouds and water vapour. But the problem is such forcing appears to be negative (Per example see: http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/)

You are coming with things we have been discussing here ad nauseam, but you are a recent poster and probably you have not taken the time to check it. Let me suggest you to use the "search this thread" tool and do some digging before posting. That will probably save us efforts and improve the level of debate.

Cheers.



P.S. I have found even the EIA supports the 95% figure . See http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/environment/appd_d.html

 

Most interesting JoNova - Andrew Glikson debate, thanks.
For those interested, Andrew Glikson is an Earth and paleoclimate scientist, School of Archaeology and Anthropology, Research School of Earth Science, Planetary Science Institute, Australian National University. B.Sc., M.Sc., Ph.D. Former Principal Research Scientist, Australian Geological Survey Organization.
He supports AGW.

Comments from guests are also very interesting.

Cheers.

 

http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_costs.html

"If wind energy is competitive, why does it need a tax credit subsidy from the government(read 'We the People')? Isn't this government(read 'We the People') interference in the free market?"

This is another way to deprive us of our hard earned money to prop up this industry, then force us to pay all over again to get the energy we already paid for once.

 

Climatology is like any other business. Without a working set of ethics and morals, they are reduced to snake-oil salesmen, marketing their product with(let me say it, again) manipulated, altered or deleted data to make the tainted propaganda match the desired outcome, rather than accepting the factual data and drawing honest conclusions from that.

1.Ask and define the question.
Then word it to deceive.

2.Gather information and resources through observation.
Then alter or delete to deceive.

3.Form a hypothesis.
Rather than hypothesis, select outcome wanted, but move to number 1. position, then force results to match desired outcome of fraudulent study.

4.Perform one or more experiments and collect and sort data.
Be sure to cheat, removing all conflicting data or lie about it, because that is what snake-oil marketing campaign is all about.

5.Analyze the data.
This means carry out alterations, deletions and omissions to deceive.

6.Interpret the data and make conclusions that point to a hypothesis.
This means make sure no data remains that weakens your desired conclusion or in any way points to the truth.

7.Formulate a "final" or "finished" hypothesis.
Polish the lies and put lipstick on the pig in readiness for the press release.

 

Good article on the true cost of Wind Power............


http://www.wind-watch.org/documents...imated-and-its-value-is-always-overestimated/

Again, I do not say that wind power does not have it place in the energy mix. But as it will never have the potential to be a "primary" source as opposed to a bit (10% or less) contributor without massive subsidies I think wasting taxpayer dollars on any subsidy for wind power is foolish. If you want to maintain charge in the battery on your boat or lawn equipment with a small windmill, go for it. Don't expect me to pay for it. Don't expect me to be thrilled at the prospect of wasting tax dollars on an unreliable source and have to pay more for the end product even after the subsidy. To waste the billions we have to chase an unreachable goal to solve a non-existant crisis is asinine.

 

Until rich liberals want it outside of their front doors, it has no place outside of our front doors, either.

 

I can understand that you might not like to discuss the ulterior motives of some of the Authors you have presented as most seem to be working either directly or indirectly for the oil and gas interests in a type of PR campaign called Agnotism

the suppression and falsification of information would appear to be a standard within the denialist diatribe and efforts to point that out understandably upset the deniers

I might point out that these position papers do nothing to form a coherent alternative theory but instead do little more than nip at the heals of a theory that is fast getting ahead of there disinformation campaigns efforts

cheers
B

PS
reminds me of a whole bunch of folks who dont know what a scientist is or what the ethics of science are

 

who are you and what have you done with Slowpoke

 

The following link contains an economic analysis of wind power published a couple of years ago by the US Department of Energy.

http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/EMP/reports/2008-wind-technologies.pdf

There are a couple of key items to zero in on. Page 30, figure 17 shows the wholesale pricing of electrical power generated by wind energy as well as the overall pricing of electrical power generated by all methods. Over the time frame of the graph (years 2003-2008) wind power came in at a price of a little under $0.04 per kilowatt hour and the price for all power generation methods came in at a little over $0.05 per kilowatt hour. Thus, wind power is a little less expensive.

The report also states that BOTH cost figures are probably too low because they don't reflect all costs. For example, the report mentions power transmission costs, which are not reflected for either cost figure, and the costs of subsidies are also not reflected for either cost figure. (The report points out that subsidies are going to BOTH types of producers.) Nevertheless, the report clearly shows that arguments that claim that wind power is too expensive are bogus.

Page 41, figure 26 is also interesting. It shows that operation and maintenance costs for recently installed wind generators are about $0.01 per kilowatt hour. This is, of course, very low. I am not sure if this figure includes the subsidy, but even if we were to add back the subsidy given to power generated by wind energy (currently $0.021) the cost would still only be about $0.03 per kilowatt hour.

 

Mooo!

http://www.windcows.com/